Russia: “Dribbler” and “Dribbling” are confusingly similar

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russia: “Dribbler” and “Dribbling” are confusingly similar

Sponsored by

gorodissky-400px.png
Moving soccer ball around splash drops on the stadium field.

A trademark application for Class 41 was filed under No 2018735958 with a priority date of August 20 2018.

russia-ib-april-1.png

Examination was conducted and the registration was refused. The examiner stated that the claimed designation is confusingly similar to the trademark under registration No 610062 in Class 41.

russia-ib-april-2.jpg

The cited trademark is registered in the name of another person and has an earlier priority. The applicant appealed the decision of the patent office at the Chamber of Patent Disputes. The Chamber of Patent Disputes noted that the claimed designation is a combined designation, with “Dribbler” being the dominant element. It focuses the attention on the upper part of the designation. Overall perception of the designation begins with this element. It is easier to memorise in comparison with the non-protected combination of figures which are in fact a background and an illustration for the word which carries the basic individualising weight.

The cited trademark according to registration No 610062 with priority of February 4 2016 is a combined designation with the dominating word element “Dribbling.” It is easier to memorise than the elements in the form of a stylised picture of the Latin letter “D” and a ball represented as a circle. The letter “D” is the initial letter of the word. Both play a secondary role and serve as a decorative embellishment and illustration for the word carrying the main individualising load.

Comparative analysis of the claimed and cited designations shows that they are similar because both have a basic individualising element, the words “Dribbler” and “Dribbling” dominating the designations.

The appellant argued that the word “Dribbling” has different meanings. The Chamber of Patent Disputes agreed with that but noted that those other meanings exist in very narrow fields, such as chemistry, the automotive industry, construction materials or may be attributed to less decent vocabulary. In any case, none of that is applicable to Class 41.

The above semantic meaning of this word (manoeuvring a ball by one player) relates to common parlance, i.e. is in general use. There are some differences in the designations. However, those differences, such as colour, the font, the number of letters, the outer appearance, compositional placement of other elements, play a subordinate role in the perception of those designations.

The circumstances explained above by the Chamber of Patent Disputes lead to the conclusion that the claimed designations may be associated with each other despite their differences hence they are confusingly similar.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
A boom in transactional work and a heightened awareness of IP have helped boost revenue for the rebranded commercial services team
Clemens Heusch, head of global litigation and dispute resolution at Nokia, tells us why open conversations – and respectful challenges – lead to the best results
Siegmund Gutman, who joined Mintz one year ago, explains the firm’s approach to life sciences litigation and what it means for hiring plans
The merger of two IP boutiques could prompt others to follow suit and challenge Australia’s externally funded firms
Gift this article